This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

A World Health Organization agency is denying allegations published in a leading medical journal that it has fallen under the influence of the Russian asbestos industry, which is resisting tighter controls on the carcinogenic mineral.

In a Feb. 2 article, The Lancet questioned whether the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — the WHO’s cancer research arm — has fallen prey to “corporate capture” by the asbestos industry, even as the WHO fights to end worldwide use of the substance.

The article suggested that recent IARC decisions have propped up efforts to keep chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, off an international list of hazardous substances — an effort that Canada, once a top chrysotile exporter, has been at the forefront of over the last decade.

But in an emailed statement to the Toronto Star, the IARC denied the allegations and said suggestions of corporate influence are “erroneous.”

“The Lancet report is poorly researched and contains a number of false allegations and unfounded inferences,” the statement said.

Article Continued Below

“The Agency has extensive experience of conducting important research whilst protecting itself from undue influence from a variety of stakeholders with vested interests.”

The WHO and IARC had also released a joint statement earlier this week, restating the UN health agency’s position that the “most efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related diseases” is to stop using the carcinogenic minerals.

On Thursday, David Holmes, who wrote the Lancet piece, stood by his article.

“They haven’t really said anything to address the concerns set out in the article,” said Holmes, a regular contributor to the Lancet, one of the world’s most-respected medical journals.

“It’s kind of strange that the method they choose to address the concerns is to question the integrity of the person that’s questioning their integrity.”

The article, which cites several anonymous WHO sources, states that recent decisions by the IARC have triggered accusations ranging from “poor judgment to allegations of corporate capture by the asbestos industry.”

The allegations come at a particularly charged moment. In April, member states of the UN Rotterdam Convention will discuss whether chrysotile should be added to a list of controlled hazardous substances — a decision that must be unanimous. Chrysotile, which makes up 95 per cent of all asbestos mined, is the only form of asbestos not on the list.

In the past, the Canadian government has consistently blocked efforts to list chrysotile — most notably in 2011, when a near-consensus collapsed after Canada expressed opposition, according to a Canadian Press report.

Canada’s asbestos industry is now dead and the federal government announced in September it will no longer oppose the listing. But for the first time, Russia, the world’s largest exporter of asbestos, will have a seat at the table, having ratified the Rotterdam Convention in 2011.

Whereas Canada was once the “lead saboteur” in the international effort to list chrysotile, Russia is now stepping up to the plate, said anti-asbestos campaigner Kathleen Ruff, who was quoted in the Lancet piece.

“Russia is the world’s leading exporter of asbestos by far and it is the centre of propaganda and corrupt science on asbestos,” said Ruff, a senior human rights adviser at the Rideau Institute in Ottawa.

The article said concerns over the IARC were first raised in November, when the agency accepted an invitation to attend a conference in Kiev, Ukraine.

The decision prompted an outcry. Dozens of anti-asbestos campaigners and scientists signed a letter opposing the UN agency’s participation in a “sham scientific conference” designed to “sabotage” the Rotterdam Convention.

“We believe that the purpose of this conference is to promote the continued use of chrysotile asbestos,” the letter stated.

The IARC was invited by the Russian Scientific Research Institute of Occupational Health (SRIOH) — but, according to the letter’s signatories, the WHO severed its relationship with this organization years ago due to its continued promotion of chrysotile and “conflicts of interest endangering WHO’s credibility.”

In another letter addressed to the IARC director, signatories blasted the cancer research agency for collaborating with the SRIOH on a new study, led by scientist Evgeny Kovalevskiy — a “leading promoter of use of chrysotile asbestos,” according to the authors of the letter.

Citing anonymous WHO sources, Holmes wrote that high-ranking WHO officials pressured the IARC to pull out of the conference. The IARC denied this to the Lancet and spokesperson Nicolas Gaudin said the agency’s focus was to present “the relevant science to the audience of the Kiev meeting.”

In a written statement in November, the IARC said it participated in the Kiev conference because “the best science needs to be communicated to all stakeholders.”

The agency emphasized it would have nothing to do with any resolutions signed at the Kiev conference — which, ultimately, concluded that the issue of adding chrysotile to the Rotterdam Convention list would be “premature.”

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com